Network Working Group G. Ash
Internet-Draft A. Morton
Intended status: Informational M. Dolly
Expires: May 8, 2008 P. Tarapore
C. Dvorak
AT&T Labs
Y. El Mghazli
Alcatel-Lucent
November 5, 2007
Y.1541-QOSM -- Y.1541 QoS Model for Networks Using Y.1541 QoS Classes
draft-ietf-nsis-y1541-qosm-05
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on May 8, 2008.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
Abstract
This draft describes a QoS-NSLP QoS model (QOSM) based on ITU-T
Recommendation Y.1541 Network QoS Classes and related signaling
requirements. Y.1541 specifies 8 classes of Network Performance
Ash, et al. Expires May 8, 2008 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Y.1541 QOSM November 2007
objectives, and the Y.1541-QOSM extensions include additional QSPEC
parameters and QOSM processing guidelines.
Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Summary of ITU-T Recommendations Y.1541 & Signaling
Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Y.1541 Classes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Y.1541-QOSM Processing Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Additional QSPEC Parameters for Y.1541 QOSM . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. Traffic Model (TMOD) Extension Parameter . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Restoration Priority Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Y.1541-QOSM Considerations and Processing Example . . . . . . 8
4.1. Deployment Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2. Applicable QSPEC Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.3. QNE Processing Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.4. Processing Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.5. Bit-Level QSPEC Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.6. Preemption Behaviour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 15
Ash, et al. Expires May 8, 2008 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Y.1541 QOSM November 2007
1. Introduction
This draft describes a QoS model (QOSM) for NSIS QoS signaling layer
protocol (QoS-NSLP) application based on ITU-T Recommendation Y.1541
Network QoS Classes and related signaling requirements. Y.1541
[Y.1541] currently specifies 8 classes of Network Performance
objectives, and the Y.1541-QOSM extensions include additional QSPEC
parameters and QOSM processing guidelines. The extensions are based
on standardization work in the ITU-T on QoS signaling requirements
[Y.1541] [TRQ-QoS-SIG] [E.361].
[QoS-SIG] [I-D.ietf-nsis-qos-nslp] defines message types and control
information for the QoS-NSLP generic to all QOSMs. A QOSM is a
defined mechanism for achieving QoS as a whole. The specification of
a QOSM includes a description of its QSPEC parameter information, as
well as how that information should be treated or interpreted in the
network. The QSPEC [QSPEC] [I-D.ietf-nsis-qspec] contains a set of
parameters and values describing the requested resources. It is
opaque to the QoS-NSLP and similar in purpose to the TSpec, RSpec and
AdSpec specified in [RFC2205, RFC2210] [RFC2205] [RFC2210] . The
QSPEC object contains the QoS parameters defined by the QOSM. A QOSM
provides a specific set of parameters to be carried in the QSPEC. At
each QoS NSIS element (QNE), the QSPEC contents are interpreted by
the resource management function (RMF) for purposes of policy control
and traffic control, including admission control and configuration of
the scheduler.
2. Summary of ITU-T Recommendations Y.1541 & Signaling Requirements
As stated above, [Y.1541] [Y.1541] is a specification of standardized
QoS classes for IP networks (a summary of these classes is given
below). [TRQ-QoS-SIG] [TRQ-QoS-SIG] specifies the requirements for
achieving end-to-end QoS in IP networks, with Y.1541 QoS classes as a
basis. [Y.1541] [Y.1541] recommends a flexible allocation of the
end-to-end performance objectives (e.g., delay) across networks,
rather than a fixed per-network allocation. NSIS protocols already
address most of the requirements, this document identifies additional
QSPEC parameters and processing requirements needed to support the
Y.1541 QOSM.
2.1. Y.1541 Classes
[Y.1541] [Y.1541] proposes grouping services into QoS classes defined
according to the desired QoS performance objectives. These QoS
classes support a wide range of user applications. The classes group
objectives for one-way IP packet delay, IP packet delay variation, IP
packet loss ratio, etc., where the parameters themselves are defined
Ash, et al. Expires May 8, 2008 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Y.1541 QOSM November 2007
in [Y.1540]. Classes 0 and 1 might be implemented using the DiffServ
EF PHB, and support interactive real-time applications. Classes 2,
3, and 4 might be implemented using the DiffServ AFxy PHB Group, and
support data transfer applications with various degrees of
interactivity. Class 5 generally corresponds to the DiffServ Default
PHB, has all the QoS parameters unspecified consistent with a best-
effort service. Classes 6 and 7 provide support for extremely loss-
sensitive user applications, such as high quality digital television,
TDM circuit emulation, and high capacity file transfers using TCP.
These classes are intended to serve as a basis for agreements between
end-users and service providers, and between service providers. They
support a wide range of user applications including point-to-point
telephony, data transfer, multimedia conferencing, and others. The
limited number of classes supports the requirement for feasible
implementation, particularly with respect to scale in global
networks.
The QoS classes apply to a packet flow, where [Y.1541] [Y.1541]
defines a packet flow as the traffic associated with a given
connection or connectionless stream having the same source host,
destination host, class of service, and session identification. The
characteristics of each Y.1451 QoS class are summarized here:
Class 0: Real-time, highly interactive applications, sensitive to
jitter. Mean delay upper bound is 100 ms, delay variation is less
than 50 ms, and loss ratio is less than 10^-3. Application examples
include VoIP, Video Teleconference.
Class 1: Real-time, interactive applications, sensitive to jitter.
Mean delay upper bound is 400 ms, delay variation is less than 50 ms,
and loss ratio is less than 10^-3. Application examples include
VoIP, video teleconference.
Class 2: Highly interactive transaction data. Mean delay upper bound
is 100 ms, delay variation is unspecified, and loss ratio is less
Than 10^-3. Application examples include signaling.
Class 3: Interactive transaction data. Mean delay upper bound is 400
ms, delay variation is unspecified, and loss ratio is less than
10^-3. Application examples include signaling.
Class 4: Low Loss Only applications. Mean delay upper bound is 1s,
delay variation is unspecified, and loss ratio is less than 10^-3.
Application examples include short transactions, bulk data, video
streaming
Class 5: Unspecified applications with unspecified mean delay, delay
variation, and loss ratio. Application examples include traditional
Ash, et al. Expires May 8, 2008 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Y.1541 QOSM November 2007
applications of Default IP Networks
Class 6: Mean delay <= 100 ms, delay variation <= 50 ms, loss ratio
<= 10^-5. Applications that are highly sensitive to loss, such as
television transport, high-capacity TCP transfers, and TDM circuit
emulation.
Class 7: Mean delay <= 400 ms, delay variation <= 50 ms, loss ratio
<= 10^-5. Applications that are highly sensitive to loss, such as
television transport, high-capacity TCP transfers, and TDM circuit
emulation.
These classes enable SLAs to be defined between customers and network
service providers with respect to QoS requirements. The service
provider then needs to ensure that the requirements are recognized
and receive appropriate treatment across network layers.
2.2. Y.1541-QOSM Processing Requirements
[TRQ-QoS-SIG] [TRQ-QoS-SIG] provides the requirements for signaling
information regarding IP-based QoS at the interface between the user
and the network (UNI) and across interfaces between different
networks (NNI). To meet specific network performance requirements
specified for the Y.1541 QoS classes [Y.1541] , a network needs to
provide specific user plane functionality at UNI and NNI interfaces.
Dynamic network provisioning at a UNI and/or NNI node allows the
ability to dynamically request a traffic contract for an IP flow from
a specific source node to one or more destination nodes. In response
to the request, the network determines if resources are available to
satisfy the request and provision the network.
It MUST be possible to derive the following service level parameters
as part of the process of requesting service:
a. Y.1541 QoS class
b. rate (r)
c. peak rate (p)
d. bucket size (b)
e. peak bucket size (Bp)*
f. maximum packet size (M)*
g. DiffServ PHB class [RFC2475] [RFC2475]
Ash, et al. Expires May 8, 2008 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Y.1541 QOSM November 2007
h. admission priority
i. restoration priority*
All parameters except Bp, M, and restoration priority have already
been specified in [QSPEC] [I-D.ietf-nsis-qspec]. These additional
parameters are specified in Section 3.
It MUST be possible to perform the following QoS-NSLP signaling
functions to meet Y.1541-QOSM requirements:
a. accumulate delay, delay variation and loss ratio across the end-
to-end connection, which may span multiple domains
b. enable negotiation of Y.1541 QoS class across domains.
c. enable negotiation of delay, delay variation, and loss ratio
across domains.
These signaling requirements are already supported by [QoS-SIG]
[I-D.ietf-nsis-qos-nslp] and the functions are illustrated in Section
4.
3. Additional QSPEC Parameters for Y.1541 QOSM
3.1. Traffic Model (TMOD) Extension Parameter
The traffic model (TMOD) extension parameter is represented by one
floating point number in single-precision IEEE floating point format
and one 32-bit unsigned integer.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Peak Bucket Size [Bp] (32-bit IEEE floating point number) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Maximum Packet Size [M] (32-bit unsigned integer) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: TMOD Extension
When the Bp term is represented as an IEEE floating point value, the
sign bit MUST be zero (all values MUST be non-negative). Exponents
less than 127 (i.e., 0) are prohibited. Exponents greater than 162
(i.e., positive 35) are discouraged, except for specifying a peak
rate of infinity. Infinity is represented with an exponent of all
ones (255) and a sign bit and mantissa of all zeros. The maximum
Ash, et al. Expires May 8, 2008 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Y.1541 QOSM November 2007
packet size (M) is an unsigned integer.
The QSPEC parameter behavior for (Bp) and (M) is similar to that
defined in [QSPEC] [I-D.ietf-nsis-qspec], section 6.2.1 and 6.2.2.
The new parameters (and all traffic-related parameters) are specified
independently from the Y.1541 class parameter.
3.2. Restoration Priority Parameter
Restoration priority is the urgency with which a service requires
successful restoration under failure conditions. Restoration
priority is achieved by provisioning sufficient backup capacity, as
necessary, and allowing relative priority for access to available
bandwidth when there is contention for restoration bandwidth.
Restoration priority is defined as follows:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Rest. Priority| (Reserved) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: Restoration Priority
Restoration Priority: 3 priority values are listed here in the order
of lowest priority to highest priority:
0 - best effort
1 - normal
2 - high
Each restoration priority class has two parameters:
a. Time-to-Restore: Total amount of time to restore traffic streams
belonging to a given restoration class impacted by the failure. This
time period depends on the technology deployed for restoration. A
fast recovery period of < 200 ms is based on current experience with
SONET rings and a slower recovery period of 2 seconds is suggested in
order to enable a voice call to recover without being dropped.
Accordingly, candidate restoration objectives are:
High Restoration Priority: Time-to-Restore <= 200 ms
Normal Restoration Priority: Time-to-Restore <= 2 s
Best Effort Restoration Priority: Time-to-Restore = Unspecified
Ash, et al. Expires May 8, 2008 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Y.1541 QOSM November 2007
b. Extent of Restoration: Percentage of traffic belonging to the
restoration class that can be restored. This percentage depends on
the amount of spare capacity engineered. All high priority
restoration priority traffic, for example, may be "guaranteed" at
100% by the service provider. Other classes may offer lesser chances
for successful restoration. The restoration extent for these lower
priority classes depend on SLA agreements developed between the
service provider and the customer.
4. Y.1541-QOSM Considerations and Processing Example
In this Section we illustrate the operation of the Y.1541 QOSM, and
show how current QoS-NSLP and QSPEC functionality is used. No new
processing capabilities or parameters (except those described in
section 3) are required to enable the Y.1541 QOSM.
4.1. Deployment Considerations
[TRQ-QoS-SIG] emphasizes the deployment of Y.1541 QNEs at the borders
of supporting domains. There may be domain configurations where
interior QNEs are desirable, and the example below addresses this
possibility.
QNEs may be Stateful in some limited aspects, but obviously it is
preferable to deploy stateless QNEs.
4.2. Applicable QSPEC Procedures
All procedures defined in section 5.3 of [QSPEC]
[I-D.ietf-nsis-qspec] are applicable to this QOSM.
4.3. QNE Processing Rules
[TRQ-QoS-SIG] describes the information processing in Y.1541 QNEs.
[Y.1541] section 8 defines the accumulation rules for individual
performance parameters (e.g., delay, jitter).
When a QNI specifies the Y.1541 QoS Class number, <Y.1541 QoS Class>,
it is a sufficient specification of objectives for the <Path
Latency>, <Path Jitter>, and <Path BER> parameters. As described
above in section 2, some Y.1541 Classes do not set objectives for all
the performance parameters above. For example, Classes 2, 3, and 4,
do not specify an objective for <Path Jitter> (referred to as IP
Packet Delay Variation). In the case that the QoS Class leaves a
parameter Unspecified, then that parameter need not be included in
the accumulation processing.
Ash, et al. Expires May 8, 2008 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Y.1541 QOSM November 2007
4.4. Processing Example
As described in the example given in [QSPEC] [I-D.ietf-nsis-qspec]
(Section 4.4) and as illustrated in Figure 3, the QoS NSIS initiator
(QNI) initiates an end-to-end, inter-domain QoS NSLP RESERVE message
containing the Initiator QSPEC. In the case of the Y.1541 QOSM, the
Initiator QSPEC specifies the <Y.1541 QOS Class>, <TMOD>, <TMOD
Extension>, <Admission Priority>, <Restoration Priority>, and perhaps
other QSPEC parameters for the flow. As described in Section 3, the
TMOD extension parameter contains the optional, Y.1541-QOSM-specific
parameters Bp and M; restoration priority is also an optional,
Y.1541-QOSM-specific parameter.
As illustrated in Figure 3, the RESERVE message may cross multiple
domains supporting different QOSMs. In this illustration, the
initiator QSPEC arrives in an QoS NSLP RESERVE message at the ingress
node of the local-QOSM domain. As described in [QoS-SIG]
[I-D.ietf-nsis-qos-nslp] and [QSPEC] [I-D.ietf-nsis-qspec], at the
ingress edge node of the local-QOSM domain, the end-to-end, inter-
domain QoS-NSLP message may trigger the generation of a local QSPEC,
and the initiator QSPEC encapsulated within the messages signaled
through the local domain. The local QSPEC is used for QoS processing
in the local-QOSM domain, and the Initiator QSPEC is used for QoS
processing outside the local domain. As specified in [QSPEC]
[I-D.ietf-nsis-qspec], if any QNE cannot meet the requirements
designated by the initiator QSPEC to support an optional QSPEC
parameter, with the M bit set to zero for the parameter, for example,
it cannot support the accumulation of end-to-end delay with the <Path
Latency> parameter, the QNE sets the N flag (not supported flag) for
the path latency parameter to one.
Also, the Y.1541-QOSM requires negotiation of the <Y.1541 QoS Class>
across domains. This negotiation can be done with the use of the
existing procedures already defined in [QoS-SIG]
[I-D.ietf-nsis-qos-nslp]. For example, the QNI sets <Desired QoS>,
<Minimum QoS>, <Available QoS> objects to include <Y.1541 QoS Class>,
which specifies objectives for the <Path Latency>, <Path Jitter>,
<Path BER> parameters. In the case that the QoS Class leaves a
parameter Unspecified, then that parameter need not be included in
the accumulation processing. The QNE/domain SHOULD set the Y.1541
class and cumulative parameters, e.g., <Path Latency>, that can be
achieved in the <QoS Available> object (but not less than specified
in <Minimum QoS>). This could include, for example, setting the
<Y.1541 QoS Class> to a lower class than specified in <QoS Desired>
(but not lower than specified in <Minimum QoS>). If the <Available
QoS> fails to satisfy one or more of the <Minimum QoS> objectives,
the QNE/domain notifies the QNI and the reservation is aborted.
Otherwise, the QNR notifies the QNI of the <QoS Available> for the
Ash, et al. Expires May 8, 2008 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Y.1541 QOSM November 2007
reservation.
When the available <Y.1541 QoS Class> must be reduced from the
desired <Y.1541 QoS Class>, say because the delay objective has been
exceeded, then there is an incentive to respond with an available
value for delay in the <Path Latency> parameter. If the available
<Path Latency> is 150 ms (still useful for many applications) and the
desired QoS is Class 0 (with its 100 ms objective), then the response
would be that Class 0 cannot be achieved and Class 1 is available
(with its 400 ms objective). In addition, this QOSM allows the
response to include an available <Path Latency> = 150 ms, making
acceptance of the available <Y.1541 QoS Class> more likely. There
are many long paths where the propagation delay alone exceeds the
Y.1541 Class 0 objective, so this feature adds flexibility to commit
to exceed the Class 1 objective when possible.
This example illustrates Y.1541-QOSM negotiation of <Y.1541 QoS
Class> and cumulative parameter values that can be achieve end-to-
end. The example illustrates how the QNI can use the cumulative
values collected in <QoS Available> to decide if a lower <Y.1541 QoS
Class> than specified in <QoS Desired> is acceptable.
|------| |------| |------| |------|
| e2e |<->| e2e |<------------------------->| e2e |<->| e2e |
| QOSM | | QOSM | | QOSM | | QOSM |
| | |------| |-------| |-------| |------| | |
| NSLP | | NSLP |<->| NSLP |<->| NSLP |<->| NSLP | | NSLP |
|Y.1541| |local | |local | |local | |local | |Y.1541|
| QOSM | | QOSM | | QOSM | | QOSM | | QOSM | | QOSM |
|------| |------| |-------| |-------| |------| |------|
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|------| |------| |-------| |-------| |------| |------|
| NTLP |<->| NTLP |<->| NTLP |<->| NTLP |<->| NTLP |<->| NTLP |
|------| |------| |-------| |-------| |------| |------|
QNI QNE QNE QNE QNE QNR
(End) (Ingress Edge) (Interior) (Interior) (Egress Edge) (End)
Figure 3: Example of Y.1541-QOSM Operation
4.5. Bit-Level QSPEC Example
TBD
4.6. Preemption Behaviour
The default QNI behaviour of tearing down a preempted reservation is
followed in the Y.1541 QOSM. The restoration priority parameter
described above does not rely on preemption.
Ash, et al. Expires May 8, 2008 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Y.1541 QOSM November 2007
5. IANA Considerations
This section defines the registries and initial codepoint assignments
for the QSPEC template, in accordance with BCP 26 RFC 2434 [RFC2434].
It also defines the procedural requirements to be followed by IANA in
allocating new codepoints.
This document specifies the following QSPEC parameters to be assigned
within the QSPEC Parameter ID registry created in [QSPEC]
[I-D.ietf-nsis-qspec]:
<TMOD Extension> parameter (Section 3.1)
<Restoration Priority> parameter (Section 3.2)
This specification creates the following registry with the structure
as defined below:
Restoration Priority Parameter (8 bits):
The following values are allocated by this specification:
0-2: assigned as specified in Section 3.2:
0: best-effort priority
1: normal priority
2: high priority
The allocation policies for further values are as follows:
3-63: Standards Action
64-255: Reserved
6. Security Considerations
The security considerations of [QoS-SIG] [I-D.ietf-nsis-qos-nslp] and
[QSPEC] [I-D.ietf-nsis-qspec] apply to this Document. There are no
new security considerations based on this document.
7. Acknowledgements
The authors thank Attila Bader, Cornelia Kappler, Sven Van den Bosch,
and Hannes Tschofenig for helpful comments and discussion.
Ash, et al. Expires May 8, 2008 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Y.1541 QOSM November 2007
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-nsis-qos-nslp]
Manner, J., "NSLP for Quality-of-Service Signaling",
draft-ietf-nsis-qos-nslp-15 (work in progress), July 2007.
[I-D.ietf-nsis-qspec]
Ash, G., Bader, A., Kappler, C., and D. Oran, "QoS NSLP
QSPEC Template", draft-ietf-nsis-qspec-18 (work in
progress), October 2007.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[TRQ-QoS-SIG]
ITU-T Supplement, "Signaling Requirements for IP-QoS",
January 2004.
[Y.1540] ITU-T Recommendation Y.1540, "Internet protocol data
communication service - IP packet transfer and
availability performance parameters", December 2002.
[Y.1541] ITU-T Recommendation Y.1540, "Network Performance
Objectives for IP-Based Services", February 2006.
8.2. Informative References
[E.361] ITU-T Recommendation E.361, "QoS Routing Support for
Interworking of QoS Service Classes Across Routing
Technologies", May 2003.
[I-D.ietf-ippm-framework-compagg]
Morton, A., "Framework for Metric Composition",
draft-ietf-ippm-framework-compagg-04 (work in progress),
July 2007.
[I-D.morton-ippm-reporting-metrics]
Morton, A., "Reporting Metrics: Different Points of View",
draft-morton-ippm-reporting-metrics-02 (work in progress),
April 2007.
[RFC2205] Braden, B., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S.
Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1
Functional Specification", RFC 2205, September 1997.
[RFC2210] Wroclawski, J., "The Use of RSVP with IETF Integrated
Ash, et al. Expires May 8, 2008 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Y.1541 QOSM November 2007
Services", RFC 2210, September 1997.
[RFC2434] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434,
October 1998.
[RFC2475] Blake, S., Black, D., Carlson, M., Davies, E., Wang, Z.,
and W. Weiss, "An Architecture for Differentiated
Services", RFC 2475, December 1998.
Authors' Addresses
Jerry Ash
AT&T Labs
200 Laurel Avenue South
Middletown,, NJ 07748
USA
Phone:
Fax:
Email: gash@att.com
URI:
Al Morton
AT&T Labs
200 Laurel Avenue South
Middletown,, NJ 07748
USA
Phone: +1 732 420 1571
Fax: +1 732 368 1192
Email: acmorton@att.com
URI: http://home.comcast.net/~acmacm/
Martin Dolly
AT&T Labs
200 Laurel Avenue South
Middletown,, NJ 07748
USA
Phone:
Fax:
Email: mdolly@att.com
URI:
Ash, et al. Expires May 8, 2008 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Y.1541 QOSM November 2007
Percy Tarapore
AT&T Labs
200 Laurel Avenue South
Middletown,, NJ 07748
USA
Phone:
Fax:
Email: tarapore@att.com
URI:
Chuck Dvorak
AT&T Labs
180 Park Ave Bldg 2
Florham Park,, NJ 07932
USA
Phone: + 1 973-236-6700
Fax:
Email: cdvorak@att.com
URI: http:
Yacine El Mghazli
Alcatel-Lucent
Route de Nozay
Marcoussis cedex, 91460
France
Phone: +33 1 69 63 41 87
Fax:
Email: yacine.el_mghazli@alcatel.fr
URI:
Ash, et al. Expires May 8, 2008 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Y.1541 QOSM November 2007
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
Ash, et al. Expires May 8, 2008 [Page 15]
